Trump Attorney Tells Judges Presidential Immunity Would Even Cover Assassinating Rivals, Selling Pardons
themessenger.com
U.S. presidents cannot be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six, personal Trump lawyer John Sauer argued Tuesday.

US presidents cannot be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six, personal Trump lawyer John Sauer argued Tuesday

Advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive immunity, Donald Trump’s attorney told a federal appeals court on Tuesday that U.S. presidents could not be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six.

Trump’s lead attorney D. John Sauer argued that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office in a Senate trial potentially would be subject to prosecution for those kinds of alleged crimes.

A three-judge panel appeared extremely skeptical of Trump’s vision of absolute immunity, sharply questioning and interrupting Sauer during the opening minutes of the oral arguments with the former president himself sitting nearby.

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act–an order to Seal Team Six,” U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan asked Sauer.

“He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer replied, setting a pre-condition for such prosecution in Pan’s hypothetical.

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    241·
    10 months ago

    “He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,”

    Then he could assassinate them all, continually, until Congress is packed with people so afraid they’ll be killed if they step out of line and there’s no legal recourse. Just like the Founding Fathers intended…

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      8·
      10 months ago

      Obviously the intent of the founding fathers and the people is that insurrectionists cannot be permitted on a ballot, not by any officer of any court or state.

      It’s the same as the Fourth Amendment. If the prohibition on warrantless search and seizure has any meaning at all, it is a command to every law officer, attorney, and judge, as to how they must do their part of their job in the matter, and that rule is that: if the constable blunders, the criminal must go free. The remedy is implied by the text, because if it’s not the text doesn’t mean shit.